The Overseas Education Association, NEA (Union) filed two
separate requests for assistance with the Federal Service Impasses
Panel (Panel) to consider negotiation impasses under the Federal
Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (Statute),
5 U.S.C. § 7119, between it and the Department of Defense,
Department of Defense Dependents Schools, Alexandria, Virginia
(Employer or DODDS). The impasse in Case No. 92 FSIP 17 arose
following negotiations for successor collective-bargaining
agreements (CBA) in 1985 and 1989. Case No. 92 FSIP 103, however,
arose during mid-term bargaining under the parties' recently
expired 1989 CBA.

After investigation of the requests, the Panel consolidated
the cases and directed the dispute which, among other matters,
involves various pay and fringe benefit issues, to private
factfinding. Under this procedure, the designated Factfinder's
fees and related expenses were to be shared equally by the parties.
Following receipt of the Factfinder's report, which was to contain
recommendations for settlement that were supported by rationale,
the parties were to advise the Panel as to whether or not they
accepted the Factfinder's recommendations. The parties were also
notified that once the Panel received the Factfinder's report, and
the parties' responses thereto, it would take whatever action it
deemed appropriate to resolve the impasse. On June 4, 5, 9, 11,
and 12, 1992, a hearing was held before Factfinder Jacob Seidenberg
in Washington, D.C. A stenographic record was made, testimony and
argument were presented, and documentary evidence was submitted.
In accordance with the Panel's procedural determination, the
Factfinder issued his Report and Recommendations for settlement, on
September 28, 1992. The parties' responses to the Factfinder's
recommendations were also received by the Panel pursuant to its
procedural determination.

The Panel was advised by the Union that, since the Employer
had rejected its offer that the Factfinder's recommendations be
accepted intoto, the Panel should impose them on the parties
"without any changes or modifications." Should the Panel decide to
"change, modify, or clarify" the Factfinder's recommendations,
however, it "respectfully requests that . . . its proposals be
adopted in full." The Employer advised the Panel that, for the
most part, it concurred with the Factfinder's recommendations, but
"there are certain issues with which [it] disagree[d]." The Panel
also notes that the Employer has raised a jurisdictional question
before the Factfinder which he concluded "must be raised and
adjudicated in another forum because it is not within the ambit of
the charge that the [Panel] gave him."

The Panel has now considered the entire record in these
consolidated cases, including those arguments made by the parties
to the Factfinder incorporated by reference in their responses to
his recommendations. The Factfinder's Report and Recommendations,
which sets forth pertinent background information as well as the
positions of the parties regarding the issues at impasse, is
attached to this Decision and Order.

ISSUES AT IMPASSE

The parties are at impasse over Union proposals(1) on the
following 18 issues: (1) waiver of Department of State Standardized
Regulations (DSSR) requirements regarding living quarters
allowances for locally-hired unit employees, (2) compensation for
extra-duty activities outside the normal duty day, (3) compensation
for Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps (JROTC) instructors,
(4) compensation for travel occurring outside the duty day, (5)
compensation for lost preparation time, (6) compensation for lost
instructional time, (7) employee access to health and dental care,
(8) the issuance of permissive travel orders to unit employees not
otherwise eligible for Government travel to the U.S. at the close
of the school year, (9) waiver of DSSR requirements regarding
rental allowances for privately-owned residences, (10) special
incentive differentials, (11) danger pay allowances, (12)
transportation of goods for reassigned employees, (13) summer
recess travel for reassigned employees, (14) Category 2A Space
Available travel for professional activities, (15) shipment of
household goods and persons when reassigned at the request of the
Government, (16) renewal agreement travel for unit employees during
the summer recess period following reassignment at the request of
the Government, (17) maximum weight allowance for shipment of goods
when unit employees are transferred or reassigned from a weight
restricted to a nonweight-restricted area, and (18) authorization
of maximum temporary lodging allowances.

CONCLUSIONS

We shall turn first to the jurisdictional argument raised by
the Employer before the Factfinder. It essentially contends that
the Panel should decline to retain jurisdiction over the Union's
proposals on five of the issues at impasse, specifically, Issue 8
through Issue 12, involving travel and overseas allowances,
because they cover matters that already have been subject to the
obligation to bargain under Articles 48 and 49 of the parties' CBA.
In support of its argument that "there is no duty to bargain over
matters which have been subject to negotiations," it cites the
consolidated decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit in Department of the Navy, Marine Corps
Logistics Base, Albany, Georgia v. Federal Labor Relations
Authority and Marine Corps Logistics Base, Barstow, California v.
Federal Labor Relations Authority, 962 F.2d 48 (D.C. Cir. 1992)
(Marine Corps).(2) In response, the Union basically contends that
the Marine Corps cases involve impact-and-implementation bargaining
over employer-proposed midterm changes, whereas the instant
proposals arose in the context of Union-initiated midterm
negotiations. Thus, "DODDS' duty to bargain over the [Union's]
midterm proposals cannot and should not be dismissed."

In such circumstances, the Panel is guided by the Federal
Labor Relations Authority's (FLRA) decision in Commander, Carswell
Air Force Base, Texas and American Federation of Government
Employees, Local 1364, 31 FLRA 620 (1988) (Carswell), where the
FLRA determined that the Panel may apply existing case law to
resolve an impasse where a duty-to-bargain issue arises. We find
that existing FLRA and D.C. Circuit precedent(3) supports the
Union's interpretation of its right to initiate midterm bargaining
in the circumstances presented. In this regard, the Employer's
contention that the proposals it identifies arose in the context of
impact-and-implementation bargaining is unsubstantiated by any
evidence in the record.(4) Accordingly, we conclude the Employer's
jurisdictional argument is without merit; the Union's proposals are
properly before the Panel.

Having carefully examined the entire record in this case,
including the parties' responses to the Factfinder's
recommendations, on the basis of the rationale provided, we shall
order the parties to adopt his recommendations, without
modification, on 13 of the 18 issues at impasse.(5) For the reasons
stated below, we find it necessary to disturb his recommendations
only on Issues 2, 3, 8, 9, and 14.

With respect to the parties' dispute over compensation for
extra-duty activities outside the normal duty day (Issue 2), we
note preliminarily that the proposal presented by the Union in its
initial request for Panel assistance in Case No. 92 FSIP 17 would
compensate employees who perform extra-curricular activities of
between 1 and 19 hours "beginning with S[chool]Y[ear] 1991-92."
The Factfinder's recommendation on this issue fails to address
whether such compensation would apply retroactively to the 1991-92
school year, or prospectively. Thus, to facilitate contract
administration and prevent future disagreements between the
parties, we shall modify the recommendation to specify that payment
for such activities shall begin prospectively, i.e., as of the
issuance of this decision.

On the issue of compensation for JROTC instructors, the
Factfinder's recommendation, among other things, would require the
parties to "negotiate a stipend" to give them an LQA for the summer
months "unless it is determined by higher authority the current law
expressly prohibits the payment of this living quarters allowance."
In our view, there is no need to make the payment of a stipend
conditional upon the determination of a "higher authority." In
this regard, the FLRA has already decided that the proposal
presented by the Union in its initial request for Panel assistance
in Case No. 92 FSIP 17 is within the duty to bargain.(6) Moreover,
because requiring the parties to "negotiate a stipend" could lead
to a future impasse on the exact amount to be provided, we believe
that alternative wording on this aspect of the recommendation is
also warranted. Accordingly, we shall modify the recommendation by
ordering that: (1) the Employer provide JROTC Instructors with a
stipend, in addition to all other forms of compensation currently
received by them, to give them an LQA for the summer months that
the Schools are not in session; and (2) the amount of the stipend
be determined by prorating the applicable normal annual LQA for
teachers to cover the summer period.

Regarding the Factfinder's recommendation that, upon request,
permissive travel orders be issued to unit employees not otherwise
eligible for Government travel so that they may visit their homes
of record in the U.S. at the close of the school year, we are
persuaded that there is merit to the underlying intent of the
Union's proposal. That is, the financial burden on employees
stationed overseas should be reduced so that they may return home
during those periods when travel is not provided free of cost by
the Employer. We prefer, however, that the parties be ordered to
adopt compromise wording requiring the Employer to cover the
difference between the applicable Government contract rate and the
applicable commercial rate for such travel, if any. This would
give employees the option of paying either the available
commercial rate, or the Government contract rate, whichever is more
economical at the time, for travel using a regular commercial
carrier, without requiring the Employer to issue permissive travel
orders. We recognize that this may not be a perfect solution, but
it at least has the virtues of providing employees with some
financial assistance, should they wish to travel home to the U.S.,
and accommodating the Employer's concern that it not be required to
misrepresent the nature of the travel as involving official
Government business. Moreover, while we believe that the
compromise is unlikely to result in significant cost to the
Employer, the parties can revisit the issue in future contract
negotiations after they have had a chance to evaluate its real
impact. To aid the parties in assessing such impact, we shall also
require that employee requests for payments from the Employer under
our compromise wording be in writing.

Turning to Issue 9, the Factfinder recommended that the
Union's proposal, which essentially requires the Employer to use
its discretion and waive the so-called "10-year rule" established
under the DSSR, be adopted. Our examination, however, reveals an
inconsistency between the Union's proposed wording and the
applicable section of the DSSR (see Jt. Exh. 2). In this regard,
the Union's proposal refers to "the rule which limits annual rent
to one-tenth of the purchase price or appraised value," whereas the
regulation refers to the "original purchase price" of personally-owned quarters. Thus, we shall modify the Union's proposal to make
it conform to the wording of the regulation.

Finally, the Factfinder's recommendation on the issue of
Category 2A Space Available travel for professional activities
(Issue 14), in our view, requires only a minor adjustment for
purposes of clarification. In this regard, it appears from the
record that the Factfinder and the parties understood that
management would be in complete control of the types of employee-requested training to be approved for Category 2A travel. Because
this is not clearly stated in the wording of the Union's proposal,
it shall be modified to reflect this understanding.

ORDER

Pursuant to the authority vested in it by the Federal Service
Labor-Management Relations Statute, 5 U.S.C. § 7119, and because of
the failure of the parties to resolve their dispute during the
course of proceedings instituted under the Panel's regulations,
5 C.F.R. § 2471.6(a)(2), the Federal Service Impasses Panel under
§ 2471.11(a) of its regulations hereby orders the following:

The parties shall adopt the Factfinder's recommendations on
all of the issues at impasse, except as modified below: